"The airline group further maintained that MAHB is now charging higher airport taxes because it is now seeking to recover from the traveling public the cost overruns it experienced after failing to manage costs during the construction of klia2."

This is a good move because this kind of lingering issue has been going on since KLIA2 started operation. I would really like to see how it would turn out, and who's side will the government will be on.

This is a good move because this kind of lingering issue has been going on since KLIA2 started operation. I would really like to see how it would turn out, and who's side will the government will be on.

The government should not be on anyone's side - they should look at each case on its own merits. The overriding concern should be the passengers who use the airport.

Why is it that Changi airport keeps reinventing itself all the time despite winning multiple excellence awards while KLIA is getting from bad to worse? It is because they keep improving the passenger experience. It is always a pleasant experience for me when using Changi either as a destination or in transit. I cannot say the same about KLIA2.

Since opening, KLIA2 has had a lot of problems and MAHB does not seem to be able to solve these problems permanently. I think users of this airport have a good case - lets hope that the courts are impartial and look at the evidence before them and make the correct decision.

Why is it that Changi airport keeps reinventing itself all the time despite winning multiple excellence awards while KLIA is getting from bad to worse? It is because they keep improving the passenger experience. It is always a pleasant experience for me when using Changi either as a destination or in transit. I cannot say the same about KLIA2.

The unfortunate fact is that RM74 hurts Malaysian travellers a lot more than SGD47.80 does to your average Singaporean traveller. All those sunflowers and butterflies don't come cheap.

It's a chicken-and-egg situation. Raise the PSC and you'll draw the ire of the Malaysian public, Tony Fernandes, and those who want everything to be like SIN/SQ but do not want to pay SG prices; keep the PSC at a low level and you'll get the walkways being turned into bazaars and second-rate shopping malls rather than Jewels with the world's largest indoor waterfall..

Both T1 and T2 at KUL were designed and built like previous gomen policy; not operation efficient e.g. energy saving, PSC include hidden subsidy to ERL, etc. There is only so much one could improve on user friendliness, operation efficiency, etc.

For long term cost saving and operation efficiency, it may be more financially feasible to build new terminals and demolish existing.

Rural airports in Sabah and Sarawak are commercially not feasible. It should be under local authority jurisdiction so resources could be shared. With airport under local authority jurisdiction, it would encourage them to attract more traffic.

In Malaysia context as jani explain, its better to have functioning, no bling airport like KUL as long as it can subsidize other small airports as well.

I dont want CAAM to run airports. Its best to award them to private entity like how MMC being given definite lease of JHB. Im sure there are interested parties who are more than willing to do BOT model for PEN and BKI.

The problem with East Malaysia is that land infrastructure is so poor that there is a need for air transport and RAS subsidies. There will be no need for RAS services and small airports if a good railway network is built to serve the major towns in East Malaysia. So the government can choose between building railways or airways. Either way, govt. still needs to invest on these infrastructure projects.

If govt has to operate those airports again, you - the taxpayer - would be subsidizing them.

An airport is most of the time a service to the people and needs to be subsidized.

Yes, it is OK if the govt. subsidises directly (like on the RAS services) or via airport operations.

MAHB merely uses this excuse for the poor state of KLIA but does not pro-actively tackle the root cause of the issues. Taking non performing airports off their hands will simplify accountability and be less of a distraction.

They can then focus on making the commercially viable airports great and compete with the best in the world.

The problem with East Malaysia is that land infrastructure is so poor that there is a need for air transport and RAS subsidies. There will be no need for RAS services and small airports if a good railway network is built to serve the major towns in East Malaysia. So the government can choose between building railways or airways. Either way, govt. still needs to invest on these infrastructure projects.

I won't touch on Sarawakian part of EM, but at the Sabah side, my guess would be that upkeep cost of a "good railway network" serving "the major towns" may prove to be comparable, or even more expensive than the RAS subsidies. Not taking into account yet capex necessary to build those tunnels under the Crocker Range

MAHB better off focusing on KLIA. Afterall, it is company's jewel.. Other major airports should be left to be managed by separate companies like Senai JHB. Then, there will be chance for these secondary airports to grow their potential.

Agree - govt. should remove these airports from MAHB and put them under CAAM again. Operate the airports on limited hours. Close them when no flights are scheduled.

Rural airports in Sabah and Sarawak are commercially not feasible. It should be under local authority jurisdiction so resources could be shared. With airport under local authority jurisdiction, it would encourage them to attract more traffic.

That's almost like robbing Peter to pay Paul, no? Money still have to come out from somewhere. Do you want a local authority say Kudat Municipal Council operate Kudat airport? Where are they going to get the money from? Kudat residents?

The problem with East Malaysia is that land infrastructure is so poor that there is a need for air transport and RAS subsidies. There will be no need for RAS services and small airports if a good railway network is built to serve the major towns in East Malaysia. So the government can choose between building railways or airways. Either way, govt. still needs to invest on these infrastructure projects.

Yes, it is OK if the govt. subsidises directly (like on the RAS services) or via airport operations.

MAHB merely uses this excuse for the poor state of KLIA but does not pro-actively tackle the root cause of the issues. Taking non performing airports off their hands will simplify accountability and be less of a distraction.

They can then focus on making the commercially viable airports great and compete with the best in the world.

Sure. Let's all blow up more mountains and make our rainforests more fragmented and accessible to illegal logging/poaching. You do realize that some towns in the interiors aren't accessible by roads - only via rivers or planes? And while we are at it, let's invite more Chinese companies to invest in Malaysia so we'd be indebted to them and open up our ports and land for their use.